It looks like A & E and the gay Gestapo just got punked. A & E is hiring Phil Robertson back. It looks like they picked the low news cycle of Friday evening to announce it. I predict the first episode of the new season will be HUGE. I’m going to watch it, and I probably would not have before.
Jim Goad at TakiMag is his usual irreverent self.
Clearly the Christian Bible preaches that “men who have sex with men” will not go to heaven. Despite what the Lavender Lobby and the Gay Mafia and the Homo Militia and their rainbow coalition of allies and enablers and apologists would have you believe, homosexuality is explicitly condemned in the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Quran. None of the three major Western monotheistic religions is down with the idea of men going down on other men. So you can either be a faithful adherent to one of these religions, or you can have sex with persons of your own gender—pick one and stick to it. But you can’t have both. Hey, I don’t make the rules—I only report them.
Cracker Barrel thought they would get out in front of the Phil Robertson controversy and be the first to officially ban Duck Dynasty items from their stores.
Hmmm …? Cracker Barrel? What could they have possibly been thinking? Who does Cracker Barrel thinks eats there, urban hipsters and metrosexuals? (Maybe urban hipsters eat there to be “ironic.”) I thought Cracker Barrel was known as a Republican leaning company. I could have told you this wouldn’t end well for them, and it hasn’t. Now after a major outcry, they have returned Duck Dynasty items to their stores.
Update: Rod Dreher comments on the Cracker Barrel incident here. His thoughts are the same as mine. Does corporate Cracker Barrel know who eats at Cracker Barrel?
Phil Robertson is refusing to back down. Here are a couple of links.
Gary DeMar says good for Phil.
I missed this announcement, but apparently Sunday was Wear Camo to Church Sunday to show support of Robertson.
For the record, I don’t routinely watch Duck Dynasty. I watched it a couple of time just to see what all the fuss was about, but I don’t like reality TV in general, and to me much of DD seemed obviously staged. But I do think it is good that there is a show that portrays a Southern Christian family in a largely positive way. If Phil is rehired and DD returns to A&E then I watch it. If it moves to another channel, then I’ll watch it, just to show support.
Update: The Robertson family is sticking by Phil. If A&E doesn’t back down, DUck Dynasty may be done.
Update II: Aaron Wolfe at Chronicles chimes in.
LEAGUE OF THE SOUTH NEWS SERVICE
19 December 2013
Re: Phil Robertson and A&E
For Immediate Release
The League of the South, the premier Southern Nationalist organization, supports Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty in his Biblical condemnation of sodomy. Moreover, we encourage our members and supporters to boycott the A&E Channel and their advertisers until they issue a sincere apology to Mr. Robertson and end his suspension from the program.
League President Michael Hill said the following: “The executives at the A&E Channel have shown their contempt for Mr. Robertson’s right to speak the truth from God’s own word about the sordid nature of sodomy. This is merely one more incident that proves that the purveyors of American popular culture are committed to an anti-Christian and anti-Southern agenda of hatred and lies. We urge Southerners and others of good will to support Mr. Robertson and to let the A&E Channel know that they will not be watching Duck Dynasty or buying the products of their advertisers until this matter is rightly settled.”
The League of the South can be reached for further comment at (800) 888-3163 or at firstname.lastname@example.org. More information can be found at www.dixienet.org.
PC makes some people totally stupid. FOX News’ Megyn Kelly is in hot water because she said Santa Claus is white. Only in PC Land could such a statement be considered controversial. Because Santa Claus IS white. Of course I know that Santa isn’t real, and some are using this point to criticize Kelly, but this is just to cover their own foolishness. No one here is really faulting Kelly because they believe she thinks Santa is real. They are faulting her for insisting that the imaginary character of Santa is white. But we know Santa is white because, for one, he is based on Saint Nicholas who was white. A folk story like Santa Claus has a cultural context. It arises from somewhere and has a history that can be traced. Santa Claus has always been conceptualized as white because the story arose in Europe. It didn’t arise in China or Sub-Saharan Africa. If the story of Santa had arisen in Africa then he would be black. Kelly is supposed to address this controversy. This is so silly she shouldn’t dignify it with an apology. She should just state the obvious something like I do above, and shame the PC fools for their foolishness.
I plan a post with a series of links to articles from conservatives that are contrary to the current Mandela hagiography that we are witnessing in the wake of his passing, but I am having router problems and have had limited internet access the last few days, so that post is coming. In the meantime, I wanted to get this quick post up since the subject matter is right in our wheelhouse.
Newt Gingrich has criticized conservatives who have expressed contrary and politically incorrect views about Mandela. The generally paleo friendly James Antle has an article up at TAC that says Newt Gingrich is right. It doesn’t surprise me that TAC posted such an article. In fact, I was almost certain they would. I have been checking back regularly looking for one. I am a bit surprised that it is James Antle who wrote it, however. Antle usually walks a fine line between nuancing tricky issues on the one hand but without overtly embracing the PC side on the other. This article is not finessing a touchy subject. It is embracing the other side.
Antle makes a fair point that people need to be judged in context. I made that same point in my post below, when I said that I don’t necessarily condemn Mandela for being a (small c) communist per se. (Meaning he believed Marx was on to something with regard to economics.) There were a lot of small c communists in that time and place. I do hold it againts him that he was a member of a brutal Communist party (SACP) (which he lied about) and headed an organization that used and endorsed terrorism and brutality.
Again, as I said before, in the 80′s conservatives took for granted that Mandela and the ANC were the bad guys, so to speak, in this drama. Now, conservatives must sing pre-emptive praise for Mandela just to ward off charges of racism. This illustrate the ever tightening grip of political correctness on our culture and especially our political debate. This tigtening grip must be resisted on every front rather than acquiesed to. Whatever other criticism of Antle may be in order, I think he and people like him are missing the big picture. Their efforts to finesse these issues for what they see as the benefit of conservatism actually empowers the Zeitgeist even if there may be some merit to the finesse. Appearances are key here. If it might look like a cave to PC, you should think long and hard about whether it is worth it even if your motives might not be caving to PC.
Update: This morning I posted a comment at TAC that simply said “Et tu James? Et tu TAC?” It has yet to appear. My hunch is that it won’t appear because it’s been a while and several other comments have been approved since. Also, normally it will say “Your comment is awaiting moderation” before it is posted, but you can still see it. I can no longer see my own comment which suggests to me it has been deleted and not just neglected. If so, that’s weak. Censoring critical but non-vulgar or otherwise innappropriate comments is bush league. I have posted another comment that is a modification of my last paragraph above. Let’s see if that makes the cut.
Ted Cruz posted a tribute to Nelson Mandela on his Facebook account. Some of his supporters then expressed their displeasure. Now the PC Media thinks his supporters expressing displeasure is a news story. Here is what Cruz wrote:
“Nelson Mandela will live in history as an inspiration for defenders of liberty around the globe. He stood firm for decades on the principle that until all South Africans enjoyed equal liberties he would not leave prison himself, declaring in his autobiography, ‘Freedom is indivisible; the chains on any one of my people were the chains on all of them, the chains on all of my people were the chains on me.’ Because of his epic fight against injustice, an entire nation is now free. We mourn his loss and offer our condolences to his family and the people of South Africa.”
First of all, regardless of what facts and opinions may be in dispute, Cruz’s post is gratuitous PC grandstanding. Best to say nothing at all because almost anything you say is going to appear to be PC placation, and the PC beast needs to be resisted and challenged, not placated. If you must say something then a simple Rest in Peace would do.
As the Daily Beast article linked above points out, US conservatives long took for granted that Mandela was the bad guy in this drama. (Of course the Daily Beast pointed this out as an indictment, not for educational purposes.) He was a Communist who headed a terrorist Communist organization. Now I believe people should be judged in the context of their time and situation. So I don’t much like Communist as an epithet. Mandela was a revolutionary, and African revolutionaries at that time were likely to be communists (big C or little c) because that was the milieu they were in. This is similar to the random pre-war German who is accused of being a Nazi. Well yeah, he might have been a Nazi, because a lot of pre-war Germans were Nazis. And a lot of the people who throw around the accusation would have been Nazis also if they had been Germans at the time just based on numbers alone. So I’m not crazy about communist as an simple epithet coming from rightist any more than I am Nazi as an epithet coming from leftist. That said, the fact that he was a Communist is not nothing either, and shouldn’t be swept under the rug the way the fawning media is doing. I hold against him that he was a member of an authoritarian and viscous Communist party more than I do the fact that he might have thought Marx was on to something.
But the fact that conservatives used to routinely criticize Mandela but now supposed conservative stars like Cruz feel it necessary to praise him says a lot about how oppressive the PC atmosphere has become.
Here is a tweet from Mike Church, a Constitutionalist radio host on Sirius/XM. (I don’t know how to post one of those pictures of a tweet, so this is just cut and pasted.)
Mike Church?@TheKingDude 26 Nov
The subjugation of @jackhunter74 aka The Southern Avenger is complete after Politico apologia & now http://www.southernavenger.com is shuttered
This is enlightening. I knew Mike Church was a strict Constitutionalist and advocated nullification and secession, but I didn’t know that he resists PC. This is good to know.
Here is a column by Alexander Hart on Jack Hunter’s recent Politico apology. Unfortunately, most of it is behind a paywall, but based on what you can view for free, he doesn’t think much of Jack’s attempt to re-enter polite mainstream con company. If anyone here is a premium member of VDARE, let us know the details.
Update: An old friend sent me the whole article. The article links to this PC movie review that Jack did prior to the Politico mea culpa.
Let me begin by saying that I have always liked Jack Hunter. I have only met Jack once at a Ron Paul event in Georgia, but I consider him a virtual friend. He is my Facebook friend. I was always especially fond of Jack because in addition to us both being Southern paleocons, we also shared a love of professional wrestling, especially of Ric Flair and the old NWA/Georgia Championship Wrestling on TBS era. We also shared a fondness for old school action movies. Jack, while a few years younger than me, reminded me a lot of myself. He was an intelligent guy who talked about Kirk, defended the South and seemed to really get it politically, but also couldn’t get beyond his Southern, blue collar tastes. The combination of someone who could talk intelligently about Kirk and Weaver one minute and then be a geeked out fanboy of Ric Flair and Sylvester Stallone the next was rare. Most people who can do either, can only do one or the other. Very few can do both. Hence I always felt a kinship and familiarity with Jack that exceeded our actual familiarity. While I don’t know if Jack felt the same way, I know he knew who I was and that he was familiar with this website.
I have been aware of Jack’s Southern Avenger persona since well before he revealed his identity. In fact, I recall going on an internet snooping session at one point to see if I could figure out who he really was. (To no avail.) The reason I was curious to figure out his true identity is because he seemed so well versed in paleospeak that I figured he might be someone I was (virtually) familiar with. We frequently posted his videos on this site. Contrary to Jack’s protests that he was young and naive, part of the reason that I liked his commentaries so much was because he was very articulate and often threw in references to Kirk and others that seemed intended to established his paleo bona fides. They struck me as winks of a sort. His way of saying “I’m one of you” without wearing it on his sleeve.
So it was with dread that I read his “Confessions of s Right-Wing Shock Jock” which appeared yesterday at Politico. I knew before reading it that he was going to prostrate himself before the gods of political correctness begging forgiveness and seeking to be accepted back into polite company, and he did, as I expected, just that. No worse than what I expected but no better.
I don’t now dislike Jack. I’m not going to disown him. I’m not going to call him names. I’m not going to un-friend him. In fact, when this “scandal” first broke, I counseled others against attacking Jack personally. Since I do consider Jack a virtual friend, to now attack him would be disloyal. It’s also unhelpful. I will say that I’m disappointed that this is the way Jack has responded to the “revelations,” which as someone noted (David Weigel maybe?) when this first broke, had always been hiding in plain sight.
When this came out, Jack had two options. He could do what he did and is doing which is backtrack and denounce his past. Or he could defend what he said vigorously. As I pointed out at the time, nothing he said, taken alone, was all that scandalous. Everything he said was common amoung paleos and in many cases mainstream conservatives. He could have appologized for some of the way he put things – suggesting that Lincoln and Hitler would have been best of friends is a bit provocative – without apologizing for the substance. He could have said he had become more libertarian over time, without casting aspersions on his old belief systems. His backtracking didn’t save his job them, and I’m not sure it will get him back into polite company now. What I do know is that he has hurt the cause he once (maybe still?) supports by accepting the framing of the enemy that what he said was scandalous. It was not. What the system needs is not another generic libertarian. What the system needs is smart articulate people like Jack who aren’t afraid to defend authentic conservatism against the PC mobs whether they be liberal “anti-racists” or Lincoln idolizing neocon thought policers.
I don’t doubt that Jack over time has become more libertarian. The simplicity and reductionism of libertarianism is seductive and has a way of drawing in people who are around it. And while I never got the impresion that Jack was hostile to religion, I did sense that he wasn’t personally very religious, so the slide into libertarianism was likely easier for him than it is for religious socons. Also, I don’t doubt that Jack has become over time more politically pragmatic. Playing the political game tends to do that to people. I had noticed this myself as Jack became somewhat of the designated spokesman for the Ron Paul campaign against conspiracy theorists and no-compromise libertarians. Now whether this was a job Jack was asked to do because it was felt he had credibly with the proponents of these issues or if this was a cause he took upon himself, I don’t know. It is possible that realizing his own past put him in jeopardy, Jack was trying to establish his reasonable bona fides, but this is just speculation.
That conceded, his handling of the racial and Southern issues in the article struck me as completely craven. Jack sort of walks back his support of secession as a principle for example. The passage where he addresses it is confusing. Jack is a good writer and there was no need for the passage to be confusing. I think the passage reflects his own ambivalence. I suspect he felt he needed to say something that he didn’t really want to say. Jack is schooled enough in Southern conservatism and Rockwell style libertarianism to know that secession is on firm intellectual and historical grounds.
His framing of racial and immigration issues as largely matters of sensitivity was pretty pathetic. As I pointed out at the time, the shock quote that was trotted out in the original hit pieces that was supposed to be so damning regarding race, wasn’t shocking unless you’re a lefty PC hysteric or an easily PC intimidated cowardly conservative. It wasn’t pro-white racialism. It was a standard color-blind conservative denunciation of the racial double standard. Jack’s yammering on and on about the need for conservative sensitivity on racial issues per se and Southern issues in general is profoundly harmful because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It accepts their framing of the debate. When a PC hysteric points and sputters because you denounced Cultural Marxist double standards, the way to respond is not, “Oh I’m so sorry. I’ll be more sensitive next time.” The way to respond is “You’re darn right I decried the Cultural Marxist racial double standard! What kind of conservative would I be if I didn’t? Do you defend it?”
My hunch is that Jack doesn’t believe his own crap here, and is just throwing himself on the mercy of the PC rightthink guardians. While he may believe that more care when discussing racial issues is prudent, in the same way he now embraces more pragmatic politics, I don’t think he really accepts that conservatives should abide by PC strictures with regard to language and policy lest they be guilty of wrongthink. Likewise I don’t think he really believes that defense of the South, secession, states rights etc. automatically means one is guilty of thoughtcrime. He’s too smart for that and too much a product of the roots that gave rise to the Southern Avenger.
So I am disappointed that Jack has chosen this route. I wish he had chosen the honorable route that Jason Richwine chose which was to vigorously defend himself because he knew he hadn’t done anything wrong. If Jack wants to remain a libertarian and a politcal pragmatist, I’m fine with that. I think that transformation is genuine. But accepting the framing of left-wing PC obsessives and neocon hit men is not OK. Hopefully Jack’s conscience and pride (the good kind) will set him back on the right path and one day he’ll write a mea culpa for his mea culpa. Maybe Jason Richwine can give him a call.
Attn: This story is now officially a hoax. Ignatiev is not even retiring.
I actually didn’t doubt the quote, because I knew Ignatiev’s history, but I did doubt the sincerity of the website that was praising it. But finding out this was a hoax was not easy. I ran several web searches before I found the story above.
Original story begins below.
Noel Ignatiev is the infamous white hater who edits the journal Race Traitor (Yes there really is a “journal” called Race Traitor.) and is probably most infamous for this quote:
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”
Not content with that little gem, he recently used the occasion of his retirement to let lose with this doozy:
“If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world! They only murder, exploit and oppress non-whites! At least a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby but what can a white male do? He’s good for nothing. Slavery, genocides against aboriginal peoples and massive land confiscation, the inquisition, the holocaust, white males are all to blame! You maintain your white male privilege only by oppressing, discriminating against and enslaving others!”
Ignatiev, who is of Russian Jewish heritage, of course looks as white as I do. (See above link.) The link is to a site called Diversity Chronicle. I have yet to decide if Diversity Chronicle is legit, or if it is really an elaborate spoof of the foolishness of people like Ignatiev. This paragraph makes me think it may really be a spoof:
The good Professor’s sound and reasonable words resonate with every enlightened and progressive mind. They are indisputable and no one can debate them. They should not be controversial in the slightest, yet remarkably a few far-right extremists object to the Prof. Ignatiev’s advice.
No one could seriously be that clueless, could they?
Addendum: The whole quote along with Diversity Chronicle may be a spoof. I’m still looking into it.
Jack Kerwick responds to the critics of Paul Gottfried here.
In addition to defending Gottfried, he bemones the state of conservative affairs that too often substitutes ad hominem attacks for actual debate.
That Gottfried’s critics here are doubtless people of the right, self-avowed “conservatives,” is a tragic commentary on the times. More specifically, it is a tragic commentary on just how successful the left has been in commandeering our culture, for the insults that now bombard Gottfried are textbook exhibitions of precisely the sort of ad hominem attack that the left has always wielded to terminate debate while destroying—professionally, politically, and socially, destroying—its opponents.
It is bad enough that Gottfried’s detractors readily substitute insult for argument. Far worse, however, is that in addition to being anti-intellectual in character, his critics’ insults are baseless.
I’m leaning toward the belief that Townhall generally publishes whatever Jack sends them, but that they didn’t round file this one is something.
Imagine a deluded soul who claims to despise the Mafia, but gets teary-eyed about the bravery of its gunmen. That’s pretty much what housebroken conservatives do when they rage about DC’s assaults on our liberty but insist true patriots support the regime’s wars and armed forces.
This story should open some eyes about what those armed forces are armed to enforce:
A controversial 600-plus page manual used by the military to train its Equal Opportunity officers teaches that “healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian” men hold an unfair advantage over other races, and warns in great detail about a so-called “White Male Club.”
“Simply put, a healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian male receives many unearned advantages of social privilege, whereas a black, homosexual, atheist female in poor health receives many unearned disadvantages of social privilege,” reads a statement in the manual created by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI).
The military document advises personnel to “assume racism is everywhere, every day” and “notice code words for race.” They are also instructed to “understand and learn from the history of whiteness and racism.”
“Assume racism is everywhere, everyday,” read a statement in a section titled, ‘How to be a strong ‘white ally.’”
“One of the privileges of being white is not having to see or deal with racism all the time,” the manual states. “We have to learn to see the effect that racism has.”
DC has pursued an egalitarian agenda since it squared off with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Our handlers decided that the best way to counter Soviet ideology was to emulate it. Thus was born the Civil Rights Revolution, which birthed open borders, the homosexual rights movement, and a domestic army of race hustlers.
Check out who authored the diktats from the Pentagon’s new manual:
I obtained a copy of the manual from an Equal Opportunity officer who was disturbed by the course content and furious over the DEOMI’s reliance on the Southern Poverty Law Center for information on “extremist” groups.
In other words, another leaker who couldn’t stomach what his government was doing made the courageous decision to expose what was going on—much like Edward Snowden. And just as in the Snowden affair, the heel-clickers will howl that only unpatriotic, hating extremists oppose what “our” armed forces are doing. That’s because the post 9/11 definition of a patriot is a person who supports all of the Pentagon’s urges, no matter how totalitarian and self-destructive they are.
Finally, click on the following story if you aren’t convinced the US military, like every other tentacle of the DC Empire, is a force of evil:
Are you mad enough yet?
Well, NPI had their conference, and the predictable PC point and sputter snark fests have appeared. These clownish thought policers have no originality. You could write these type of pieces before the event sight unseen. I’m certainly not shocked that Salon engages in this sort of Cultural Marxist rightthink enforcement masquerading as journalism, but I’m a little surprised by Vice. I thought I detected a bit of political incorrectness at Vice, or at least enough irreverence that they would realize how trite and cliched PC enforcement point and sputter pieces are. Has Vice forgotten that it was co-founded by Gavin McInnes who now writes for TakiMag. What’s next? Are they going to do a hit piece on their former co-founder?
Notice that the guy who wrote the hit piece for Vice, C.J. Ciaramella, normally writes at the Washington Free Beacon, which is the site that originally went on a wrongthink witch hunt against Jack Hunter.
Of course the authors, C.J and Lauren Fox, are both white. Why are they and those like them such self-loathers?
Political Correctness demands society treat individuals as identical. When differences emerge, racism or monetary privilege is blamed.
In the following video, a Jew named DJ Lubel mocks Political Correctness, singing that stereotypes tend to apply to the majority. Those stereotypes derived from experience tend to have some basis in reality, as opposed to stereotypes manufactured by the mass media which can be complete propaganda.
The feminization of society is about to take a bold leap forward. From the New York Post:
Thanks to a plan by President Obama to create a “unisex” look for the Corps, officials are on the verge of swapping out the Marines’ iconic caps – known as “covers” — with a new version that some have derided as so “girly” that they would make the French blush.
“We don’t even have enough funding to buy bullets, and the DoD is pushing to spend $8 million on covers that look like women’s hats!” one senior Marine source fumed to The Post. “The Marines deserve better. It makes them look ridiculous.”
The thin new covers have a feminine line that some officials think would make them look just as good on female marines as on males — in keeping with the Obama directive.
In conjunction with this change in uniforms, the Marine Corps Hymn has been updated as well to reflect the Corps’s new image. Here’s an exclusive first look:
From the power suits of Yves Saint Laurent
To the flair of Armani
We will rock these girly uniforms
On the runways and at sea
First to fit our feet in pink footwear
And wear dress blues like a queen
We’re the first branch to go unisex
We’re Obama’s New Marines!
Really Jordan? So is that what TAC is now? A stepping stone so that you can move on to being a Cultural Marxist thought enforcer at the Dailly Caller? What? Was Jamie Kirchick not available?
And notice he is now J. Arthur Bloom, rather than Jordan Bloom. Trying to get that TAC stink off you Jordy? How do people like him sleep? How do they look at themselves in the mirror in the morning? You don’t have to agree with everything Spencer says or NPI supports or whatever. Make those honest differences known? But to hire yourself out to write PC point and sputter hits pieces is beyond pathetic. Are those Beltway cocktail parties really that much fun Jordan?
I was going to title this post something like “Daily Caller Does Another PC Hit Piece on Richard Spencer,” but that’s old hat. This is really the much more interesting angle.
I don’t watch a lot of FOX News except when it is on in the lounge at work, because I don’t watch a lot of news. When I watch news I want to argue with the TV and my blood pressure goes through the roof so I generally avoid it and get my news from the internet. But when I do watch news, I generally watch FOX. (Did I just sound like the Dos Equis guy?) But this is a dynamic I hadn’t picked up on yet - the new primetime darling, Megyn Kelly, as the designated moderate.
The article is by Joe the Plumber who Kelly called a racist for quoting a satirical article written by a conservative black guy. So Kelly was attempting to score PC brownie points but apparently hadn’t read the whole article she was supposedly offended by. Not a swift move there Megyn.
Megyn Kelly so wants to be the moderate in that lineup that she couldn’t even get to the end of the first page of a post on my website before she rushed on the air to scream RACISM!!
Like a little spoiled liberal, with no research into the matter, no call to the author, no knowledge of who the author even is and no conservative credentials to be making such claims in the first place, Ms. Kelly is getting her centrist slot off to a rousing start and should be receiving invites to all the right upper east-side mainstream media parties soon.
“Oh, Megyn, what’s it like working over there with THOSE people?…”
If you’re wondering what I’m ranting about, I posted an article by a talented writer named Kevin Jackson, who had written a satirical piece about race and the presidency, entitled; “America Needs a White Republican President”.
That’s right Megyn, you bashed an African-American! Or as Kevin calls himself: “American.”
I’m a Falcon’s fan, but when I lived near DC courtesy of the USAF, it was all Redskins talk all the time, so I started following them somewhat and still root for them in general when they aren’t playing the Falcons.
Now the PC Brigade is out in force trying to get the Redskins to change their name. Even Barack Obama has chimed in. So far, the Redskins’ owner, Daniel Snyder, has bravely resisted the baying forces of Political Correctness citing, appropriately, tradition. But there may be some cracks forming in the dike. The very PR sensitive NFL is said to support a change.
First of all, Redskins is only offensive if you want it to be. A team would chose the name Redskins and the image of an American Indian brave because the Indians are largely viewed as brave, rugged, and capable fighters. No one is naming their team the Washington French. (Sorry for the gratuitous swipe at the French, which is unwarranted, but it is the only example I could think of.) Not all American Indians take offense to the name and logo, but the ones that do should turn it around as a positive. “Darn right we’re a tough people!”
If the Redskins go, who’s next? The Florida State Seminoles, named after a particular tribe? The Atlanta Braves, named after the Indian warrior class? The Kansas City Chiefs? The Cleveland Indians? Or are only the Redskins unacceptable because it is a term that was once sometimes used as a term of derision.
But the main reason that the name change should be resisted is because PC should be default resisted as a matter of principle. (With some nuance depending on what is meant by PC. We should not support rudeness or crudeness.) This nonsense has got to stop somewhere. Each victory for the other side is one more victory for them and one more defeat for common sense. If Redskins was OK in 1932, why is it suddenly not OK now? Yes, sensibilities change, but there is no broad outcry to change the name. The name change is being pushed by grievance groups who sense they can take advantage of the new oppressively PC atmosphere, and the PC rightthinkers (I’m talking to you Bob Costas.) who automatically go along with them.